Chattisgarh High Court
Ramlakhan Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1802 of 2022
Ramlakhan Kashyap S/o Gangaram Kashyap Aged About 50 Years
R/o Village Birra, Police Station Birra, District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate (Police Station
Jaijaipur), District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For State : Smt. Meena Shastri, Addl. A.G.
For Objector : Shri Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
02/01/2023
This appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 14-A of the Prevention
of Atrocities Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated 21/10/2022 passed by the
Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act)
Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 936/2022 rejecting the
anticipatory bail application of the appellant. The appellant is apprehending his
arrest in connection with Crime No.171/2022 for the offence punishable under
Sections 294, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)( n)(/k), 3(2)
(V-d) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 registered at Police Station Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.).
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07/10/2022 the complainant
Premlal Koshle has lodged a report against the four accused persons that they are
abusing the complainant with his caste and threatening to kill the complainant.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is practicing Advocate and
resides in village Birra, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The alleged
incident appears to have happened in Jaijaipur which is far from the place of
residence. He submits that on the date of incident neither the appellant was present
on the spot nor his name find place in the FIR. He further submits that the genesis
of the incident is that the nephew of the present appellant caused in the accident in
which the son of the complainant died. Thereafter the FIR under Section 304 A of
IPC is registered against the nephew of the present appellant. However, it appears
that some untoward incident has taken place and the written report was lodged by
the complainant to the Police Station in which name of the present appellant does
not find place. Name of the brothers of the present appellant finds place in the FIR.
He submits that he has also given applications to the higher officials for cancellation
of the FIR because it is a case of total false implication. He also submits that since
the name of present appellant is not find place in the FIR the bar under Section 18
and 18 A would not be applicable. He also submits that the co-accused namely
Ramprasad Kashyap was enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 13/10/2022 by
the trial Court. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Others, (2020) 4 SCC 727 and in
the matter of Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in
(2019) 17 SCC 326 and in the matter of Umendra Sahu vs. State of C.G. and
another in CRA No.844 of 2020 decided on 04/02/2021 by this High Court, hence
the application may be allowed.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application for
anticipatory bail and submits that though prima facie the name of the present
appellant is not mentioned in the FIR but subsequently when the statement of the
complainant recorded under Section 161 of CrPC the complainant has clarified the
fact that the name of the present appellant Ramlakhan Kashyap @ Ramkhilawan
Kashyap which is mentioned in the FIR, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said
that the name of the present appellant is not mentioned in the FIR. The FIR was
lodged on 07/10/2022 and the statement under Section 161 of the CrPC was
recorded on 23/10/2022.
5. Counsel for the Objector vehemently opposes the bail application and
submits that the bar under Section 18 & 18 A of the Special Act would be operative
and looking to the overt act, nature of allegation, the application may be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions.
7. Prima facie it appears that the name of the appellant is not mentioned in the
FIR, it appears that the genesis of the incident is because of an accident committed
by the nephew of the present appellant causing the death of the son of the
complainant, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj
Chauhan (Supra) and this Court in CRA No. 844 of 2020 taking the totality of the
circumstances, I am inclined to benefit of Section 438 of CrPC to the appellant.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest
of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the
concerned police officer as and when so required.
(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the
Court or to any police officer,
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial,
(d) After filing of the charge-sheet, he shall appear before
the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said
Court till disposal of the trial,
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar
nature in future
(f) If any of the conditions is violated by the appellant, the
State / complainant will be at liberty to move an application for
cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that these observations are only for the purposes of
deciding the bail application. The trial Court will decide the case on its own merits
without being influenced by any observation made herein-above.
It is directed that the appellant will appear before the Investigating Officer for
co-operating in the investigation on 16/01/2023.
Sd/-
( Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Kamde
